Mr. W. Clark on the Littormide. 353 
between Professor Forbes and myself. I have no copies of my 
letters, for it has always been an irksome task to me to copy 
what I write; I trust to memory; and if I have misdated any 
point, I humbly submit to correction. As Professor Forbes’s 
letter is strictly malacological, I feel confident, from his well- 
known liberality, that he will not consider an apology necessary 
for the insertion of the following extract :— 
“ West Lulworth, near Wareham, Dorset, Nov. 1849. 
“T should like to know what opinion you have come to re- 
specting the specific value of the forms of the Littorie you 
enumerate. For my part I can only recognize Littorina litiorea, 
L. petrea, L. neritoides and L. rudis. 1 am in doubt however 
whether ZL. jugosa should not also be held distinct.” 
Being in a position to answer decisively, I wrote to the effect, 
that having carefully examined nearly all the animals of the va- 
rieties termed by authors L. tenebrosa, L. jugosa, L. zonaria, 
L. rudissima, L. fabalis, L. neglecta, &e., I found them to be 
identical with each other, and mere varieties of ZL. rudis, and 
consequently that that portion of the genus Li¢torina consisted, 
agreeably to his views, of only L. fittorea and L. rudis ; | however 
added, that I believed the Lacuna, not excepting L. crassior, were 
confined to one or two species. As the genus Littorina has long 
been the depdt of many of its varieties improperly promoted 
to species, it occurred to me that a good opportunity offered 
itself for making a few remarks, with the view of checking, if pos- 
sible, this ingonvenient practice, by pointing out the great detri- 
ment that resulted to science from the fabrication of species on 
insufficient grounds. I have been wishing for an apt opportu- 
nity to emit my paper, which only occurred in the April Number 
of the ‘ British Mollusca,’ wherein malacologists will observe 
that Professor Forbes with singular coincidence corroborates - 
with his views, mine, written many months ago, from actual ex- 
amination of the animals. Though the learned Professor has 
admitted into his work varieties that have not the slightest pre- 
tensions to be styled species, for the sake of exciting further in- 
vestigation of them, yet in page 52 of his summary of the Litto- 
rine, he boldly and emphatically repudiates all paternity with the 
pseudo-species. He says— 
“Tn the preceding- account. of the Litiorine several are de- 
scribed as species which many of our ablest naturalists regard as 
varieties, whilst others are considered as varieties which some 
hold to be worthy of specific rank ; our conviction is, that the re- 
sult of a completed knowledge of this genus would be a reduction 
in the number of true British species. Taking the most perma- 
nent features of the animal and its shell as our guide, we are 
Amn. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 2. Vol. v. 23 
